A wonderful pathway of chance introduced me to Ken through his 'Grace & Grit' -- the most moving book I've ever read. Having read that I went on to read his 'Brief History'

I'm amazed of the way Ken has managed to integrate so much into his four quadrants and to explain it so simply and vividly. But....

The 'but' is his understanding and therefore positioning of 'systems' in in the quadrants. Being American this is perfectly understandable -- not meant perjoratively, although from where I stand, one sometimes wonders about a nation that can elect a George Bush as president!!! -- because the American literature on systems is almost exclusively in the fields known as general systems dynamics, systems dynamics, cybernetics, systems engineering, systems analysis, Viable System Model, complex systems and living systems theory. All of these are sometimes categorised as variants of  'hard systems thinking'

There is another tradition of systems thinking found in the UK and other parts of the world: soft systems thinking and critical sytems thinking initiated by Peter Checkland (building on the work of Geoffrey Vickers and Wes Churchman (from California)). This tradition has been further developed by Mike Jackson, Gerald Midgley, Bob Flood (in the UK), Richard Bawden (Australia) and to a much lesser extent, myself (in South Africa).

The key elements of this tradition are: the field of application is restricted to 'human systems'; human beings interpret their expereince in the world and assign meaning; on the basis of meaning(s) assigned intentions are formed and purposeful action is taken and informing this purposeful action is a worldview which includes values; human systems don't exist 'out there' (in any ontological sense)

How does this relate to 'systems'. We talk about 'systems thinking' rather than systems (see Checkland, Systems Thinking, Systems Practice). Systems thinking makes use of systems concepts, eg, holarchy/hierarchy, emergence, adaptation/viability/sustainability, boundaries (which some would claim is the most imporant of all because of its inseparability from value judgements.

Checkland (in Soft Systems Methodology in Action) sums up the difference between hard and soft systems thinking as follows:

"The real distinction lies in the attribution of systemicity. hard systems thinking assumes that the world is a set of systems and that these can be systematically engineered to achieve objectives. In the soft systems tradition the world is assumed to be problematic but it is assumed that the process of inquiry into the problematic situations that make up the world can be organized as a system. In other words, assumed systemicity is shifted: from taking the world to be systemic to taking the proces of inquiry to be systemic."

Now I agree with Ken without reservation in his critique of 'hard systems thinking' (located in the lower right hand quadrant) which I think he means. Soft systems thinking (SST) has more to do with the lower left hand quadrant, but the challenge is to understand the linkages between systems thinking and Ken's 'holons'

Sid Luckett
Cape Town

Hey Sid, how's Cape Town,

Thanks for the interesting post.  I’m unfamiliar with the technical aspects of the systems you mention.  However, the thrust of your query seems to be on how to place different types of systems theories in the AQAL matrix.

It may be useful to apply some rigor to defining what features are found in the LL quadrant and the LR quadrant.  The LL is described by Ken Wilber as cultural with cultural features, while the LR is described as social systems, inclusive of institutions, organizations, etc.  System here meaning, 1^st)   having structure of some sort, like the educational system, the church’s, the economic, political, and governmental systems.  Secondly, it means the technical and theoretical aspects of systems theory, in particular, the mode that you mention, the ‘hard systems thinking’.  The LL is articulated by 2 of the 8 zones or modes of inquiry and experience; Hermeneutics and Cultural Structuralism, as well as persons just communicating with each other, trying to understand each other.  It involves groups of people in intersubjective interactions, maybe in communication with each other, maybe in conflict with each other.  The groups of people often express a worldview based on their cultural development usually called vMemes.  In the movie Mindwalk, Liv Ullman is a physicist describing a technical systems theory, LR, to a politician and a poet.   The politician is running for president in the political system, LR, while the poet comments on their discussion from his personal, UL, perspective.  The conversation, in general, is a LL phenomenon.

Your description of soft systems thinking regarding how human beings interpret their experience and assign meaning and value seems to me to have a LL affinity.  It seems particularly related to Hermeneutics mentioned above and gone into extensively in the published excerpts of Ken’s at Shambhala.   http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/excerptB/part1.cfm  The books you have read so far do not explore the 8 modes of inquiry that these excerpts go into in a more nuanced fashion, including the unique relationship between the LL and the LR quadrants.  Without knowing more about Checkland’s work, yet, that’s the best I can suggest.

By the way, speaking of systems, what particular systems approach would you suggest in examining an Integral Sustainability study?

Jim Buckley, Vermont

Jim, hi

Thanks for your response and for directing me towards the 8 modes of enquiry and the vMemes -- I must confess that I've never heard of either. Any particular book(s) of Ken's that will introduce me to both topics? 

Yes I would put soft and critical systems approaches in the LL quadrant -- soft systems thinking (sst) is an investigative process that makes use of systems ideas obtained from 'hard' systems methodologies. In the latter a 'structure' is only regarded as a system if it has at least the following characteristics: (a) it consists of interconnected elements (and of course most 'things' that we in everyday language call systems such as and educational system fulfills this criterion); (b) it has a nested hierarchy of systems (Ken's holarchy); (c) it has a purpose; (d) because it has a purpose it needs to have a communication and control mechanism (a feedback loop) to ensure that the system meets it's purpose (the literature often refers to this as the property of homeostasis); (e) and most importantly it has a boundary which separates the system itself from it's environment. In my view this is a particularly important characteristic of systems. If you think of any real world educational system  the question arises as to what is in the system and what is outside. It is ussually assumed that the learners, teachers, admistrators, programme developers and funders  are part of the system. But the family members of the learners? the surrounding community in which the school/university buildings are located? stakeholders etc? For sst where the boundary is drawn is a decision made by the investigator/analyst. And critical systems thinkers point out that this decision has value implications. 

Jim I don't know how to answer your question about an Integral Sustainability sudy. I need ot find out a bit more about what such a study would entail. After reading your references I'll get back to you on this.

Cape Town is a great place to be-- for may reasons. Have you ever visited the city?

Sid Luckett, Cape Town

Hey Sid,

The 8 modes of inquiry, or 8 zones are discussed, by Ken in his last book Integral Spirituality, interspersed throughout the book, as well as, at length, in the excerpts I mentioned.  Are you able to get onto the Shambhala website to see the excerpts?  vMemes are discussed by Ken in his book A Theory of Everything, pages 5-16.  Also Don Beck and C. Cowan’s book Spiral Dynamics is completely about vmemes.  If you Google, Don Beck, you will find his website and some other sites that have some of his interviews that will give you a good idea of the vmeme structure. 

However, one of the best stage development structures I’ve seen, and which parallels Ken’s altitude stages are the Action-Logics of Susan Cook-Greuter.  This is essentially where Ken developed the term vision-logic.  Her website is http://www.cook-greuter.com/ go to Papers and Resources, and then to A Detailed Description of Action Logics.

It is probably worth your while to compare your understanding of soft systems thinking with cultural structuralism, or Ethnomethodology, (see graphic at http://wilber.shambhala.com/images/misc/major-paradigms.gif), which is zone 4 of Ken’s system.  That zone examines the structure of a culture from the outside of a collective holon’s “we” space or group space in the LL quadrant.  The boundary feature seems to be important to both.  You bring up the very questions these zones hope to differentiate and clarify.

Best, Jim

 

Hi Jim,

Many thanks for all the helpful references. I’m realizing that I’ve still got a long way to go… Ken is a prolific (and extremely interesting) writer  

I have managed to read the Kosmos excerpt on the Shambala website as well as  Action Logics by Susan Cook-Greuter. (But can’t claim to have fully digested either).

This is just a short note with regard to soft systems thinking. I agree with you that it is a methodology should be placed in the LL quadrant. Peter Checkland himself sees it as an interpretive hermeneutic. He also sees it as an action-research methodology specifically designed for interventions in the management of organisations. It is important to note that he doesn’t claim widespread applicability, however it has had a significant impact on systems thinking in the UK and commonwealth countries and given birth to the very influential critical systems thinking, so I don’t agree with  Ken’s assessment (in the Kosmos extract) that the ‘vast majority of influential systems approaches are all forms of third person plural inquiry’ (ie in LR). His assessment is relevant to the US only, where soft and critical systems thinking is virtually unknown.

One difficulty that I have with Ken’s understanding of holons is that he seems to assume that all holons exist as objective entities This is a hard systems perspective (but I may well be misrepresenting him.).

Let me explain. From a soft perspective, where you place the boundary of a holon is entirely a matter of interpretation. Take the example of a university as a holon. What is inside of  the and what is outside of the university is not an objective issue, it is intrinsically related to the purpose that the analyst ascribes to the university as a system/holon.

Also from a soft systems perspective the understanding of what a boundary is will therefore depend on what zone the analyst is operating from.

Will get back to you with some more on soft perspectives on holonic thinking 

Sid

jim:

[ken wilber] seems to assume that all holons exist as objective entities

hi jim,

i'd like to add something to your conversation with sidney. of course, there is an objective aspect to holons, just as there is a subjective aspect--and an intersubjective aspect, and an interobjective aspect. my understanding, largely from the kosmos excerpts, is that they co-arise in the perspective that is each moment, each drop of experience. when we talk about this, however, or write about it, as in the excerpts, for example, it all becomes necessarily an object of this written or spoken perspective.

if it's well done, however, it will evoke similar experiences we, the readers and listeners, have had ourselves: there will be communication, not just of hard 'its', but also of inferred 'i's and 'we's.

that's what i've tried to do here,

ralph

---

Ralph, hi

Some social constructivists (postmodernists) will say that everything is socially constructed and therefore is doesn't make sense to talk about an 'objective aspect'. I don't go along with this, I agree with Ken and Roy Bhaskar (Critical Realism) that in certain cases the notion of an 'objective' reality makes sense. The difficulty is how to know this objective aspect and therefore how to 'touch' it. 

We talk about ecosystems, but it is very difficult to precisely define the boundaries of ecosystems. Think of a wetland... where is the boundary. It becomes more difficult when we think of a person. In the Zulu language there is a saying, "umntu ngumntu ngabantu" .. a person is a person thorugh other people. In other words we cannot even talk about an individual person. If that is the case then where is the boundary of a person?

In Steps to an Ecology of Mind Gregory Bateson has conversations with his daughter (metalogues) one of which is titled 'why do things have outlines'. In this metalogue he ponders the value nd reality of 'outlines' which he concludes by saying...'I don't understand it myself'' ...which is a bit where I am at present

let's keep talking...

Hi Ralph & Jim

With the arrival of the festive season I have a bit of time from my regular work, with the Masakh' iSizwe (Let's build a nation)  centre in the provincial dept of transport, to reflect on Jim's "twenty tenets" tenets of holons. I've already touched on some of the tenets but want to explore in more depth the from a critical systems perspective the ideas of
(a) Emergence -- (i) holons emerge & (ii) they transcend themselves
(b) Viability/sustainability -- holons have the capacity for self-dissolution
(c) Nested hierarchies -- (i) each emergent holon transcends but includes its predecessors & (ii) destroy a holon and you will destroy all of the holons above and below it
(d) The ontology of holons -- reality as a whole is not composed of things or processes but of holons

Athough (d) is first on Ken's list I'll refelct on it last because it touches on some very comlex issues which I don't fully understand myself. 

Wishing you a peaceful and self-transcending festive season

Sid   

Hello all, Just a thought:

 

 Schools of thought do fix on a particular perspective of reality while the Integral level of consciousness can hold a variety of perspectives in an inclusive, yet transcendent way. Integral consciousness, or vision logic, or Second-Tier Teal/Turquoise recognizes what is co-arising and differentiates, for clarity, that which is interior, subjective, and associative to a holon, and that which is exterior and objective.  Ultimately, it is a synthesis of recognition that any occasion, or the ‘many occasions’ really are one occasion.

 

The deconstructionists may say that every occasion is culturally contextual, and the Pragmatists and the Zulu’s may say that the self can only be defined by association with others. At an Indigo level, as well as the astral, causal, and non-dual levels it is true that we realize more and more that we are all interconnected, and therefore, more and more associative or dialogic, either by communication, communion, or resonance. However, that does include my individual development from self to Self to Overself. At higher stages the boundaries are blurred, for Integral is a map or framework, a help, of communication, until it is transcended.

 

What does an Indigo system of organization vs. an Indigo cultural interaction look like? The subjective/objective, and intersubjective/interobjective (objective at these levels seems more difficult to identify), or the overriding principle starts to become a unified field. It seems to me that the Integral framework and consciousness level is transitional and emancipatory – bridging the chasm between isolating schools of thought and the tendency toward reductionism, and this unified field. This does not preclude an analysis of how you want to define soft systems thinking at a, what?, Green/Teal level?

 

Jim - still out there...

hi sid and jim,

i thought you both had more to say, so i was just waiting....

in the meantime, kw continues to add to his integral vision, something to keep in mind. for example. however great a read SES is, it's not his latest word. in the excerpts to vol.2 of the kosmos trilogy, for example and as i understand them, he posits 'perspectives' to be the fundamental building blocks of the kosmos and, in effect, the source of holons.

also, in a recent IN dialogue--i forget which--he speaks briefly of the 3rd tier, employing the terminology of sri aurobindo, as correlating with states of consciousness. so, instead of indigo, violet, ultraviolet and clear, we have paramind, metamind, overmind and supermind, correlating, as i understand it, with the gross, subtle, causal and nondual states--something like that. he says that training in these states gives rise to the corresponding structure stages of consciousness--actually creates them.

he may actually have left indigo=paramind~gross state out of this account. to make sense out of this i would need the more comprehensive explication i imagine will be forthcoming in the books 'overmind' and 'supermind' he's been working on.

the point is that the meaning of the term 'indigo' may be undergoing a fundamental reworking: we'll just have to wait and see.

ralph

---

Hi Ralph & Jim

I do have more to say ... sorry that I didn't get round to it. had a much better festive season break than expected and planned.

I get the feeling that I might be talking 'past' you and Jim, so maybe the best place for me to pick up -- if it's ok with you -- is at the very foundations. At the ontology of holons.

I'm curious about Ken's use of the concept because while in some of his books (eg Brief history of Everything) he says that 'holons' are fundamental to his conception of the universe: "reality as a whole is not composed of thigs or processes but of holons" , in others (eg Integral Psychology) holons hardly get a mention and they don't seem to be central to his systematic exposition of states, structures or bodies.

This leads me to question whether he really needs the analytical category of holons. I think that probably all of his important insights could be developed without the use of holons. 

But as a relative newcomer I could be completely mistaken! If so could  either of you point out to me where I'm missing something.

And if holons do exist in some fundamental sense as Ken says, what are they? Is an atom a holon? If so where is it's boundary (ie where does it begin and where does it end)? Let's assume that a constituent element of an atom is an electron and given that an electron cam be conceptualised as a wave (as well as a particle) were does the  wave begin and end ... You get the gist of my problem?

Let's take something that has an order of magnitude something closer to what we can see and feel. Think of  any a lake ecosystem. Where are its boundaries? Is the river that runs into a lake part of the ecosystem or not? Is the lakeside vegetation part of the ecosystem? The mountains that form the catchment area of the lake? etc etc. Do you see my problem?

Back to where I started: are holons useful analytical categories? And if they are what are features that make them useful in undertansding the world around us? More importantly what use are they in Ken's psychology/spirituality?

I'll be back soon with some more questions and thoughts...   

Ralph, thanks for the prompt

Sid 

Greetings,

 

I’ve started to look, a little, at Checkland and Soft Systems Methodology. Just looking at some book reviews and Wikipedia. That information is minimal and certainly, as you say, talking past the subject. However, what I could gather is that SSM is a response to the rigid and reductionist analysis of systems by scientists. It seems to be seeking a broader view of systems that includes a LL quadrant perspective. Like for example, “How to manage disaster planning; When should mentally disordered offenders be diverted from custody? What to do about homelessness amongst young people?” (those examples are from Wikipedia). Anyway it’s a start.

 

As far as holons go I would say that holons are foundational to Ken’s Integral Methodological Pluralism (IMP). Holons are what are identified in the classic four quadrant graphic on the inside cover of SES. They are identified from atoms to the advanced brain in the UR quadrant, and from the felt experience of prehension of atoms to vision logic of the advanced brain in the UL quadrant.  I know this graphic just identifies major categories, or stages of development of holons and doesn’t define what a holon is. Ken does that in chapter 2 of SES with his twenty tenets. Of particular note are points 2c and 5, where the former says that a holon is self transcendent and the latter states that each emergent holon transcends but includes its predecessors, as Charles indicated yesterday. 

 

Therefore, one of the key elements of IMP in general is translation (another aspect of a holon) and transformation, where translation is communication and resonance or agency (purpose) with holons of the same evolved stage like molecules. Translation and transformation can also be discussed when talking about Integral Psychology or cultural solidarity, that is, social holons, without constant reference to the ‘systems’ explanation of holons. For example, when talking about solidarity in the excerpts, Ken refers to both horizontal solidarity and vertical solidarity, and discusses at great length translation and transformation regarding those two types of solidarity, without saying much about holonic tenets, for that foundation has already been laid.

 

Each tenet would apply equally importantly to these social holons and yet one must recognize the limits of a continuous, comprehensive analysis. That is why Ken emphasizes describing a kosmic address or identification of what you wish to emphasize. Which level, which line, whether health, ill-health, or the shadow is being discussed. As well as, what aspect of the holon does one wish to address; emergence, agency, transcendence, or the pull toward evolving – Eros. Ken says that some psychologists argue that “the aggressive drive is the drive to differentiation, and Eros is the drive toward integration, and disruption of either one results in serious pathology.” (SES chapter 2). Interestingly, holon analysis is very systems oriented- which I’m not qualified to really assess. 

 

Chapter 3 of SES goes into the interior dimension of holons and therefore their boundary between that interior and exterior. Anything happening in the left quadrants is subjective and a felt experience and subject to our best interpretations and verifications. Anything on the right hand quadrants is objective and in a sense measurable, observable. We don’t have to feel or sense or intuit boundaries, we can see them, touch them. In Excerpt ‘D’ Ken explains, ‘a social system or network has some sort of physical boundary because all exteriors including exterior intersections are located in sensorimotor space. Therefore, a forest has a physical boundary.’[1]

 

Hasn’t ecological science defined river ecosystems, fresh water lake ecosystems, and forest ecosystems pretty specifically, almost to an exact science? Of course, a bio-region is another holon, I guess, which is another overview of several of these ecosystems. Do they all follow the 20 tenets of holons? That would be a lot to analyze right now…

 

Also holons, including atoms or cells or bacterium co-arise in 4 dimensions, so, yes they can be assessed from different perspectives.  For electrons - wavelike from one point of view, etc. Ken describes a bacterium from this multiple perspective methodology. If you can understand it, please translate it for me…[2]

 

To Ralph…

 

I definitely agree that Ken emphasizes that ‘perspective’ is foundational to all that is arising out of Sunyatta. So much so, it seems to me, that perspective becomes the younger sibling of witnessing awareness. Out of nondual awareness, perspective co-arises in its variations as the first manifestation, before perception, energy, whatever. Unusual, in its importance.  By the way, the perspectives and the witness arise in sentient beings, so is this a chicken and egg query?

 

 

First-Tier	Second-Tier	Third-Tier				(source)
Gross/Mental	Vision Logic	Psyche	Subtle	Causal	Nondual	SES
Gross/Mental	Mature mind	Astral	Causal	Super Causal	Nondual	Shabda Yoga
First-Tier colors	Teal & Turquoise	Indigo	Violet	Ultraviolet	Clear	IMP
Gross/Mental	Higher mind	paramind	metamind	overmind	supermind	KW, Aurobindo
self	Vision Logic	Self 1	Self 2	Overself	Unified Field Or Logosphere	Various Schools

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your description of the stages, particularly 3^rd tier may be true, and Ken may clarify

his understanding of them further. However, key here is understanding the crucial significance of Second-Tier as missing link, mediator, and bridge between First-Tier and Third-Tier, by whatever names we wish to describe those levels as indicated in the Integral Psychology tables and Integral Spirituality. Most schools of thought have either stopped at First-Tier psychology levels or just jumped to Third-Tier spiritual levels, without adequate transitional levels. That is what is so great about KW, Susan Cook-Greuter and C. Graves’ work, is their articulation of the transitional stages.

 

Jim

 

 

 

 

Jim, hi

In response to your most recent posting, I agree with your assessment of SSM being in the LL. This is where I disagree with Ken (my first posting on 2007-11-17 in this sequence) – he places systems approaches in the LR. This is true for all hard systems thinking such as systems dynamics (made popular by Peter Senge in The Fifth Discipline)

 

I’m assuming that the quadrant graphic that you refer to in SES is identical to the quadrant given in A Brief History of Everything.

 

One of the things that worry me about Ken’s idea of holons is that he gives the example of atoms as holons being part of molecules which are also holons. So far so good – this is an example of his idea of holarchy which I accept. What I’m not happy with 'though is the tenet that if you destroy a holon you will destroy all of the holons above it. If we see a lake ecosystem as holon, then that holon contains water (obviously!). We start running into problems when we examine the relationship between the lake ecosystem and its component parts. The water in the lake is made up of H20 molecules which in turn contains hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms, each of which can be seen as holons. If we destroy one of those atomic holons then we don’t destroy the lake! This contradicts the  tenet. The problem could of course be avoided if the tenet were changed to something like “destroy the class of holons …”. If all hydrogen atoms in the lake ecosystem were destroyed then the lake would of course be destroyed.

Another example: destroying a cell (a holon) in a brain (a holon) doesn’t destroy the brain

 

I think that Ken’s idea of Holons could be tightened up a bit by borrowing some insights from systems thinking.

 

To be continued ...

 

Sid

…. continued …

 

Ken’s holonic tenets & insights from (soft) systems thinking. I’ll discuss them in the order given in A brief History of Everything. (One per posting)

Tenet 1: Reality as a whole is not composed of things or processes, but of holons.

The problem here is the imputed reality ascribed to holons. But before discussing this we need to be clear about the difference between things and holons. Ken, in giving examples of holons, suggests that a word is a holon. A word is simply a thing, so if a it is an example of a holon what is the difference between a thing and a holon? Of course an answer to this is that holons have certain characteristics (tenets) which will of course distinguish them from most things. In systems language a pile of bicycle parts lying on a floor is simply a pile (a thing which is a collection of things) it is not a system. If the things in this pile are assembled it can be seen as a system. So we need to be careful about what we label as systems and I suggest we should be just as careful about what we label as holons.

 

Back to my opening comment on this tenet, ie, the imputed reality issue.

Hard systems thinking (HST) would say that in the world there are many things which are systems (because they have certain properties): a computer, a school, a traffic control system, a human, a brain, etc. etc.

 

Soft systems thinking (SST) cautions against viewing systems as real – this is a limit condition. In contrast to this two fundamental tenets of SST are:

1.a. The idea is taken seriously that a whole entity which may exhibit properties of a single whole (emergent properties), properties which have no meaning in terms of the parts of the whole. (I’ll get back to this when I discuss Ken’s Tenet 3.)

1.b. To do systems thinking is to set some constructed abstract wholes (‘systems models’) against the perceived real world in order to learn about the world.

Translated to holons this means that it would be helpful to talk about holonic thinking or a holonic perspective, rather than talking about holons per se.

 

This is a tricky idea: it is interpretive thinking. I’m hazarding a guess now: it requires a cognitive level of ‘late formal’/’transition’ to grasp this. Definitely not easy to grasp from the conop level of cognitive development.

 

In the next posting I’ll discuss Ken’s second tenet: the fundamental capacities of holons. Unless somebody wants to discuss the issue raised in this posting

Till then ….

 

Sid

...continued...

regarding words as holons. Central to the idea of systems is that they consist not only of parts but of interconnected parts, thus the difference between a pile of 'parts' and a bicycle constructed of these self-same 'parts'. It seems that ken has a similar understnding of systems.

Systems can be categorised using different kinds of typologies (ie, logic of types). A commonly used typology categorizes systems as natural, designed, or human activity. There are other types of categories but they are not relevant to the ppoint I want to make here. A word can be seen as part of a designed system, where the  designed system is a language. But of course then it must be connected in such a way to the other parts (words, sentences, etc) that it has meaning within the conversation, dialogue (etc) being conducted in that language. This is probably a pedantic point which Ken takes for granted ...

Back ot my main theme, viz, Ken's tenets.

Tenet 2: Holons display four fundamental capacities ... 
Self-preservation and self-adaptation are apects of the sytems idea of viability/sustainability/resilience. So htis is common ot both the idea of holons and systems. For anyone interested in the notions of sustainability the sytems literature has many different approaches to this issue.  Essential to all is the idea that systems tend to maintain an identity or purpose, but can only do so within particular environmental conditions, ie, environmental variables must fall within certain ranges. (If it is too hot the human body expires).

If a system is not sustainable within a particular set of environmental conditions, then it fragments/dissolves. Is this the same as Ken's capacity of a holon for self-dissolution? I don't know ..

Self-transcendence may have similarites to the the systems idea of 'emergence'. But, Ken also refers to the idea of emergence (which will be the subject of my next posting) and it's not clear to me what the difference is between emergence and self-trancendence in Ken's theory. Can anyone help? 

Back next week ...